Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-01-07


conveyed by such original act and rs
there Is nothing that tends to- show
that the company ever accepted tn,
same or i'll any manner acted there"
under, | am OF the opinion that 1t can
have no force i'll determining the
status of such original act, either
when standing by itself or as affected
by subsequent legislation, any further
than as Il possible aid in the intcrprc-
tation OF the language used i'll subSc-
qucnt acts OF Congress upon the same
, subject.
] now come to the most important
part of this investigation, the Joint
resolution OF May 81, 1870. BY
it the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company is given the right " to locate
and construct under the provisions
and with the privileges, grants and du-
ties provided for in its act of incorpor-
alton, its main road to some point on
Puget Sound ria the valley OF the Co
lumbia river, with the right to locate
and construct its branch from some
convenient point on It's main trunk
line across the Cascade Mountains to
Puget sound What is the reason
able and fair intcrprction Of this lam
guagt?
will first examine it, emitting
thercirom the words under the pro-
visions and with the privileges, grants
and duties provided for in its act of i'll
corporation and as far Us ! can see
how it would hc, had all granting words
been left out Of the resolution, in which
condition it would simply hc,tow ON
the Company the right to locate its
main line down the valley of the Co
lumbia and its branch across the Cas-
cadcs, and to this extent added to or
changed the original act of incorpora-
ton, but did not in the most remote de-
gree attempt to change or restrict the
grant originally made to the main line
for its entire length from the Lakes to
the Sound. Without this resolution
it is certain that the Company had the
right To select for its main line, the
most eligible route north Of the 10Th
parallel, (with the possible exception OF
the valley Of the Columbia, rs to which,
as we have already seen, there was Il
doubt and construct its road thereon
and claim the grant therefor, for the
entire distance to the Sound, and can
it be even plausibly contcnded that
this resolution, the only effect of which
us to such main line was to make GER
tain Chat which before was doubtful, }
the right to locate it down the valley of
the Columbia, on its way to the same
terminus provided in such original act
could possibly have the effect of taking
from the grant already made for such
main line large and valuable portion
thereof? think not.
For, keeping in mind that the con
struction of this main line to the Sound
was the primary object of this lcgisla.
La ,,>I yl,,t 10,
lishmcnt thereof, the grant was origin
allv made, it seems too clear for argll-
ment that such grant could not bc taken
away by this resolution, the only effect
of which as to such main line, was, as
we have seen, to remove the cmbarrass-
mcnt under which the company was
laborng in locating such line, by rea-
son of the provision in the original act
for "A branch line down the Columbia
to Portland.
1t is, therefore, my opinion that if We
! conccde that there was no new grant
made by the said joint resolution for
said main line, yet the company, aided
by it, clearly had the right, if they
found it the most eligible line to the
Sound, to make the road in question Il
part OF the main line, and by the con-
struction thereof, under the terms OF
the original act, became entitled to the
grant of lands as therein provided.
But suppose the road i'll question
could not he constructed as part OF
the original main line, and that, there
fore, for the construction thereof no
grant had been made prior to the pas
sage of the Joint resolution in question.
Are the granting words of such resolu-
ton, above quoted, sufficient to effect
such grant? The words are "With
the privileges, grants and duties pro-
vided for in its act of Incorporation .
1t is claimed on the part of the GOV
crnmcnt that "act of Incorporation,
as thus used, must be construed to in
cludc the original act and all amend
ments thereto, made before that time
This | doubt. But we may conccdc il
without changing the force of the
words used, as we have already seen
that the joint resolution Of April 10th
1869, can in no sense bc said to he IN
amendment, and even if it was, il
could not control the plain meaning o
the words of this resolution for tn,
reason that when in the resolution o.
April 10th, 1869, Congress provided
that there should be no grant for Il lin,
of road from, at or near, Portland tC
the Sound, it was legislating in rcgart
thereto, as a branch, which the com
pany might or might not construct
having no connection with the primary